Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

[October 18, 1996] Richard Bacon to Greg Price. Re: Request to Dialogue.

To: Greg Price

From: Richard Bacon

Subject: Re: Request To Dialogue

Greg,

At 05:42 PM 10/18/96 -0600, Greg Price wrote:

>

>Dear Dick,

>

>Members of our session have communicated with other members of The

>Reformation Presbyterian Church in the past several months. However, we

>have not corresponded directly with you or your session. I would like to

>know if you would be interested in engaging in a dialogue with me

>concerning any matters related to our dissociation, or matters related to

>our convictions concerning church or state? As we have expressed in

>writing and in verbal communication, so I emphasize again: We do desire

>to be reconciled together as one body again. However, the

>conscientious reasons for our necessary dissociation must first be

>addressed. If you are interested, you may begin by stating your question,

>observation, conviction etc. I hope to hear from you soon.

Presbytery have always stood ready to listen to you. Please remember that the "dialog" was not cut-off at this end, but at yours. Obviously, what you are asking me is a personal question, but the question needs to be taken up presbyterially since it is Presbytery with whom you have to do, and not simply me (or the session of FPCR).

My personal advice (and that is all it is) would be for you to approach the Presbytery in the manner in which it should have been approached in the first place. You cannot, IMO, have it "both ways." On the one hand you wish to overture presbytery and at the same meeting of presbytery we were presented with a letter claiming that presbytery had no jurisdiction with respect to the Edmonton PRC.

My recollection (I do not have minutes before me) is that the last meeting of presbytery returned Edmonton PRC's previous documents (being an overture and a letter of dissociation) with the request that they be resubmitted in accordance with standard presbyterian practice. That was intended to be a very CLEAR signal of presbytery's willingness to listen.

IMO, what should first be addressed is the MANNER in which the Edmonton PRC chose to dissociate itself. When we are agreed as to what are the proper procedures in jus divinum presbyterian government, then I think the issues you raised are both interesting and addressable. You see, we have NEVER refused to listen. What we have refused to do is agree without ever hearing the arguments on floor of presbytery. I must admit that I have continued to regard the manner in which the session of the Edmonton PRC approached this whole matter to be either extremely uninformed or else simply unfair in expecting people to agree without having heard a clear and succinct argument put forth in its favor. If you truly have a case of conscience, that is fine -- but cases of conscience, as our standards clearly teach, are to be resolved by the government of the church acting in presbyterial fashion:

WCF XXXI:3

It belongeth to synods and councils ministerially to determine controversies of faith, **and cases of conscience;** to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the publick worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of mal- administration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his word.

[Hypertext (c)1995 Blue Banner Ministries. Used by permission.]

Please understand, however, when I say that the only way I would be willing to vote that the Edmonton PRC has standing before presbytery would be if the Edmonton PRC were willing to commit to abide by any biblical ruling of presbytery. Otherwise there is not really a jus divinum association; merely a group of independent churches meeting together for an exchange of ideas. I do not believe that is what we are.

I would also like to see a willingness on the part of someone in the Edmonton PRC to address the matter that took place between Chris Coldwell of the FPCR and Reg Barrow of the Edmonton PRC last December - February.

At the time you told me that Reg and Chris should work it out between themselves, while Reg was telling Chris that his session was intending to work it out with presbytery.